MINUTES OF MEETING
SUNSHINE WATER CONTROL DISTRICT
The
Regular Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Sunshine Water Control
District was held on
Present at the
meeting were:
Mary
Macomber President
David
Hulett Vice
President
Philip Sobers
Secretary
Also present were:
Craig
Wrathell District
Manager
Bruce Cranmer District
Counsel
Cory Selchan District
Field Supervisor
Cedo DaSilva Engineer
Doug Paton WHHA
John
McCune McCune
& Associates
Jane Early CH2M
Hill
David
Clark Resident
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS: Roll
Call
The
meeting was called to order at
Mr. Wrathell: Madam President. We are on the record.
Ms. Macomber: Let’s begin. Good evening everybody. Let’s call to order this regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Sunshine Water Control District. May we have roll call.
Mr. Wrathell: Ms. Macomber.
Ms. Macomber: Here.
Mr. Wrathell: Mr. Hulett.
Mr. Hulett: Here.
Mr. Wrathell: Mr. Sobers.
Mr. Sobers: Present.
Mr. Wrathell: Indicate for the record all Supervisors are present.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS: Consideration of Award
of Contract for Professional Auditing Services with Board of Supervisors
sitting as Auditor Selection Committee (with a copy of related newspaper
advertisements provided)
Mr. Wrathell stated: “As we have discussed on a couple of occasions, we are statutorily required under Florida Statute 218 to go through the auditor selection process. We have done that. Behind Tab 2 is an actual Proof of Publication in the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel that was sent out. We also sent out email invitations to a number of auditing firms that had done some work or responded to some past auditor RFPs. So we had put out a pretty good group trying to do the shotgun effect, to see if we could get as many auditors interested as possible. As you have seen from the packages forwarded to you, according to the information I have, Grau and Associates and Keefe McCullough are the two firms that had responded to the RFP that had gone out.
“For the benefit of the public, when we did solicit the request for proposals, the Board was supplied ahead of the meeting tonight with a copy of the technical proposals and we have separate fee proposals which we’re opening for the first time right now so it will be a pleasant surprise to us.”
Ms. Macomber stated: “While the District Manager passes those out, “Happy Holidays to you all. Whatever holiday you celebrate - we’ll do that again at the end.”
Mr. Wrathell stated: “What I’ll do for you to help you through this process, because what we did supply to you in addition to those materials is a ranking sheet. When you look at the ranking sheet, you have the two firms listed - Grau and Associates and Keefe McCullough & Company, LLP.
Mr. Wrathell gave lengthy instructions on how to use the ranking sheet provided.
Mr. Wrathell stated: “What I’ll do
is also give Doug the fee proposals. Keefe McCullough has proposed a fee for
the audit of $10,000. In the case of Keefe McCullough, that fee is a
not-to-exceed fixed annual fee. They have a fee schedule for any services
requested outside the scope of the audit engagement, so I would consider the
$10,000 the fee proposal. Grau and Associates has proposed a total
all-inclusive maximum price for the year ending
Mr. Wrathell stated: “So we can make it easy on your points total for price - Keefe McCullough will get 15 total points and Grau and Associates will get 10.65.”
Mr. Wrathell stated: “If you’re done with your rankings, I can take them and we can start tallying up those totals for you.”
Pause in dialog. [Board members proceeded
with ranking both firms.]
Mr. Patton added up the rankings provided by board members.
Mr. Wrathell stated, “Let me add one thing. Your current auditor - we had sent two requests to them to solicit interest and they did not respond.”
Mr. Hulett asked if there were any outstanding transition issues with Severn Trent.
Mr.
Wrathell replied, “The only issue we had more recently here was related to
transition of old documents, some of which were literally going way back to the
early days. That was just the mechanics of moving it from their
Mr. Wrathell stated: “For the record, while Mr. Patton is adding the totals up there, I will indicate that obviously today was not our regularly scheduled board meeting; we had pushed our meeting back a week because of the City of Coral Springs holiday parade. I do have a proof of publication for the advertisement of moving today’s meeting back to this date.”
Mr. Wrathell reported: “The point total we have is: Grau & Associates - 182.25 and Keefe McCullough with 182 points. At this point, since that is the ranking of the Auditor Selection Committee, I would ask for a motion to accept the ranking as just described and to authorize us to engage Grau & Associates as your new auditor for the District.”
Mr. Wrathell: “I’ve worked with both firms. About the only thing I can say at all with Grau is they’ve gotten a whole bunch of our business. They just got 17 new districts from us. So the only concern I would have at all obviously is when they get a lot of districts, do they do a good job getting the audit done so I think that will obviously be the proof in the pudding, but both Grau and Keefe have done a great job for us.”
Mr. Hulett asked: “One thing I would like to ask them to do and do not actually see in the proposal but on the night that it’s presented, I would like have, if at all possible, a representative from the auditing firm.”
Mr. Wrathell stated: “I’m comfortable that both firms will be happy to do that, particularly Keefe McCullough in the past has done that for us and I can’t imagine Grau would have a problem with that.”
On MOTION by Mr. Hulett and seconded by Mr. Sobers, all were in favor of accepting the rankings as described and authorizing staff to engage Grau & Associates as new auditor for the District. (Motion passed 3-0)
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of
proposed new Standard Agreement for Professional Services Between CH2M Hill,
Inc., (“Engineer”) and the Sunshine Water Control District (“Owner”) for
General Engineering Services
Mr. Wrathell stated, “I think if I’m not mistaken, this was a request from the Board to come back with an actual formalized agreement because we are operating under the old Gee & Jensen agreement, and looking for an updated agreement, which I think is a good practice. I guess the only comment I would have, and I’m not sure if Mr. Cranmer had reviewed all this language, because some of it, to be honest, from just a manager’s perspective, I think you are almost better served by the lack of language in the old agreement than some of the language that’s in this one. I appreciate CH2M Hill’s attorneys doing a good job putting the language in there. This language is a little stringent. There are a couple of sections: Limitation of Liability, Consequential Damages and the Waiver Component -- there are a few sections in here that, just glancing it over….maybe this is something that we do want to come back and update the formal agreement, then I can pull out a couple of these sections -- maybe discuss with CH2M Hill folks. I’m sure they have their boilerplate language but probably ultimately, they can have some flexibility in dealing with this. So if you all like, maybe Bruce and I can work to review that language, make sure we get something comfortable and bring it back next month.
Ms. Early responded CH2M Hill is
open to modifications to the agreement proposed.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of CH2M
Hill Work Authorization No. Wa-6 Relating to the Canal Restoration Project.
Mr. Wrathell referred to Tab 4.
Mr. Wrathell stated: As you are well aware, we’re obviously in a fantastic position and it is a credit very much to the hard work of the CH2M Hill folks, but we had, in our NRCS funding agreement, we had very specific timing in our NRCS funding agreement as far as when we need to have a bid out on the streets to comply, and if I recall correctly, it was around a 90-day requirement to have a bid package actually advertised. Therefore we had asked the engineer to come back with a proposal to do that. I want to make sure I understand it perfectly well. I just had a couple of questions but maybe you can explain this to me, Jane. What I’m looking at is the scope. We’re talking about the District canal restoration project. Is Section 1 related to preparing the bid specs and this is the $9,500 lump sum?
Ms. Early responded: “That’s
correct. What we’d have to do is put together some drawings, as a result of the
canal surveys currently being conducted for the bid package.
Mr. Hulett stated: “I think that’s what I’d like to hear first personally is where we are with the canal assessment survey, exactly what the status of that is before I would move into any further work -- on behalf of CH2M Hill..
Mr. Wrathell asked: “Cory, in this layout here, are these some of the hot spots that we were talking about at the last meeting that we wanted to focus on as a priority?”
Mr. Selchan responded, “Yes.” The majority of them are on the west, in the west basin, on the west side, so they basically started out in those areas in the west and are moving across the City.”
Mr. Wrathell stated: “So the hot spots we’re targeting for NRCS to fast track those - we covered those already.”
Mr. Selchan responded, “That is correct.”
Mr. Hulett asked, “When do you anticipate the survey will be completed?”
Mr.
Selchan stated: “As a matter of fact, I think we expect delivery of the first
few miles of canal surveys so we can await the rest of the hot spots so we can
sit down work on it. What we’re gonna do
there and what we need to actually bid out.”
Mr.
Hulett said: “Another 30 days/60 days to completion?
Mr. Selchan responded: “Yes. It will probably be within the next 30 days it will probably be ready.”
Ms. Macomber: “You’ve got the holidays.”
Mr. Selchan: “I would assume some time at the beginning of next year we should be ready to start.”
Mr.
Wrathell: “And Pete’s not here today but do you recall the exact, or roughly
the date of execution of the NRCS agreement.
(Response inaudible due to speaker’s
distance from microphone).
Mr. Wrathell: “Yes it was an addendum
for…I think I would say we’re probably about a good two to three weeks, where
if I recall correctly, I think NRCS has already executed that agreement so the
clock’s ticking. That’s my only concern is the time that it takes to get what
you need and get a bid package done.”
Mr.
Hulett: “What is that time?”
Mr. Wrathell: “Within 90 days and again, I’m going off my recollection of the agreement with NRCS but basically they have to bless our bid package, and they have to bless a lot of the work as we’re going through the process. They’ll bless that. So that means we need to get it done, get them to bless it and then get it advertised. So I just want to make sure we don’t get anything held up. We’re probably realistically looking at about 70 days left on the clock.”
Mr. Hulett: “Or we lose the money?”
Mr. Wrathell: “In the contract it states that if you do not satisfy the requirements, particularly the initial component within 90 days, you could lose the money.”
Mr. Hulett: “And is the requirement to simply go to bid?”
Mr. Wrathell: “The first phase is go to bid. You have to draw up the plans and the specs which they’re gonna share with NRCS and then in the plans and the specs will ultimately be part of a bid package. So I guess realistically, as long as ultimately at end of the day, we get that compiled in the next 30 days or so, get it put in a bid package, get NRCS to sign off on it, and then get that bid package into the paper then we’ll be fine. The only other component that I don’t know how the board feels, but I think that fee for the amount of preparation is reasonable for the bid specs and everything.
Mr. Wrathell: “And then the other component with the next phase, which is obviously administration of the contract. The only other thought I had on that was, would it be appropriate to wait until the bid package has actually gone out on the streets and we’ve gotten responses and we’ve gotten someone under contract, and then enter the next phase, which is the administration? I defer to you all. That’s my only thought process on that, otherwise I’m fine with it.”
Mr. Wrathell: “Those were the only basic concerns or thoughts I had at all, so if the Board is fine with that, you can go ahead and approve the authorization.”
Ms. Macomber: The Chair will entertain a motion.
Motion
made by Mr. Sobers, seconded by Ms. Macomber.
Mr. Hulett requested an opportunity to speak before the vote.
Discussion:
Mr. Hulett: “I would like to see us take this down to just exactly as Mr. Wrathell has described, down through perhaps item 3. I am not prepared at this point to hire CH2M Hill to do the whole project. And if we weren’t under a time crunch, quite frankly, I would like to see this go somewhere else. But because I don’t want to lose the $1 million or $1.6; so obviously we’ve got to move ahead with these bids. But I would much prefer to have this particular work authorization cover down to Item 3 only.”
Mr. Wrathell stated: “Let me just elaborate on my thought. If we don’t have the specifications done yet, you don’t know what the total scope of work is ultimately going to be until we’ve got the surveys done and the specs done. That was really my focus - is when the survey and the specs are done. We understand. We know we’re getting our arms around how much work is really going to be involved and the engineer is doing all that. That was my concern.”
Mr. Hulett: “What is the date certain for the submission of bids to NRCS?”
Mr. Wrathell: “Again, it is my recollection of the agreement that it needs to be blessed by NRCS and advertised in the paper within 90 days of the execution.”
Mr. Hulett: “But I’m saying, what is that date?”
Mr. Wrathell: “I apologize. I don’t have the signed contract with me but it’s been a good two weeks since and Pete was very diligent since our last meeting getting the agreement to NRCS for execution so I think there was probably about a week and a half that went into it.”
Mr. Hulett: “So if the survey work was done by the end of January, we’re still all right getting the bids out, getting them back and approving them within the time frame allowed.”
Mr. Wrathell: “Basically, if we got the whole bid package put together by the end of January or the first week of February, as long as the bid package is advertised at that point, it will be within the 90 days, then we’re fine. But ultimately, again it’s just the ad in the paper.”
Mr.
Hulett: “Well, I assume you’ll keep a close watch on dates.”
Ms. Macomber: “I completely disagree with Mr. Hulett. We do not have a problem with CH2M Hill and are fortunate to have the NRCS money. If it hadn’t been for the diligent work of CH2M Hill-- they have given us a not-to-exceed figure. I don’t really want them to feel that they are going to lose work while we go into the initial stage of the plan. As far as completion, they have the expertise at this juncture to complete the work. So I would not recommend any changes in engineers.
On MOTION by Mr. Sobers and seconded by Ms. Macomber, all voted in favor of approving Work Order WA-6 for canal restoration, with Mr. Hulett opposed. (Motion passed 2-1).
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Review and Approval
of Amendment No. 1 to Project Agreement No. 69-4209-8-1678 Between the District
and the NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) to Increase the Funding
by $1,000,000.
Mr.
Wrathell: “This is a proposed amendment
to the agreement and this will add an additional $1 million to the existing
project agreement with NRCS, for a maximum of $1.6 million.”
On MOTION by Mr. Hulett and seconded by Mr. Sobers, all voted in favor of approving Amendment No. 1 to Project Agreement No. 69-4209-8-1678. (Motion passed 3-0)
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion Items
a.
Correspondence
received from City of
Mr.
Wrathell: “We received correspondence as you all see in your agenda packages related
to the City of
Ms. Macomber: “How bad could it have been?”
Mr.
Selchan: “It was knee high grass. Just to back up a little bit, we had actually
already started mowing the south; it’s the east canal, the one where all the
trees are laid over. We started moving at the north end and the mower
attachments of the tractor broke. And it would cost more to fix it than it cost
for a new one. So we did not repair it. We purchased a new one and in that time
frame, the correspondence was going back and forth between our old manager’s
office and the City of
Ms. Macomber: “How extensive is stumpage?”
Mr. Selchan: “On that particular canal, it is basically unmaintainable in areas because if I hit one of these stumps with the equipment, it will damage the equipment. It’s a safety problem.”
Ms. Macomber: “Maybe we could get an estimate.”
Mr. Selchan: “Or we can do both. We can get one for removal and we can get one for stump grinding.”
Ms. Macomber: “I would like to ask that you contact Representative Waldman and let him know that we were doing some work on this issue. My sense in reading this was that it would be nice if we could just talk about these issues without becoming adversarial. And I would like you to be our emissary to make sure that they understand we are addressing the issue and that it was a change of plan that caused the mix up and that all is well.”
Mr. Wrathell: “Yes. We’ll be happy to do that and again, I just want to give credit to Cory and his guys. Cory responded immediately and as he said, he was already kind of working on it anyway. We went and did a site visit and he took care of it faster than I even expected so I appreciate him doing that.”
Mr. Hulett: “Wasn’t there a letter from the City Manager of Margate as well in that packet? I certainly agree with Mary. If we haven’t gotten letters out to both of those parties, we should.
Mr. Wrathell: “We’ll be happy to do so.”
Ms. Macomber: “I’d like you to go the extra mile and contact him personally on our behalf and let him know that we are under new management, we are good neighbors and that we are willing to collaborate and cooperate with them.”
Mr. Clark, a resident stated: “Cory and his guys did some extensive work behind us, the same kind of deal, across the canal. The problem now is we’ve got the same problem there with stumps that we can’t get to. The problem is the Australian cover is coming back in there. It might be cost effective to get in there and do something before that turns into high Australian cover again.”
Ms. Macomber: “It depends on where it is.”
Mr. Selchan: “It’s not our property. It belongs to the School Board.”
Ms. Macomber: “If it’s not on our property we can’t do anything. Thank you for the comment. Thank you again, Cory. Please pass that along to your group.”
Mr. Selchan: “I believe when we do some correspondence, as part of that, I would like to send a letter to the president of the Association with some contact information so he can just simply make a phone call to me if they feels that they need something done and we’ll be happy to go over there.”
Ms. Macomber: “If we can mention that in our correspondence to both the City Manager as well as Representative Waldman.”
Mr. Wrathell: “Certainly.”
b.
State Board
of Administration Investments.
Mr.
Wrathell: “I saw that there was an article in The Economist about the State
Board in
We pulled the money out as fast as we could, to the best of our ability. Unfortunately, we just didn’t get the whole thing out in time and to be very frank right now, even money markets, anything you’re putting your investments in -- I think you’ve all seen Bank of America and others have had to infuse $600 million into their money market funds to make sure that they stayed solvent.
So we’re in difficult financial times. We do have money in our reserves to continue our operations so I don’t know that we’re as exposed as maybe some other local governments that may have some real difficulties there - some districts and other local governments with money in with the State Board. They are going to have some real problems with money. So I think there will be some pressure to resolve this which I think will ultimately happen when we progress further into the fiscal year.”
Ms. Macomber: “Where did you put the money?”
Mr. Wrathell: “Right now we have it in a simple money market. And to be very frank with you, I don’t know that I would recommend much of anything other than maybe U.S. Treasuries at this particular point until the market settles.”
Mr. Hulett: “What about a government money market fund.”
Mr. Wrathell: “Well, you do have different levels of being FDIC insured.”
Mr. Hulett: “The risk is a little less with a government money market. Is Sun Trust good?”
Mr. Wrathell: “Yes. I had looked into it but I wasn’t prepared to answer that question, but the Sun Trust money market from our research perspective so far looks okay but we can certainly investigate and see what other money market options are available. Obviously banks are FDIC insured but there are limitations on that, and obviously our amount won’t fit under the FDIC insurance.”
Ms. Macomber: “Would you take a look into that?”
Mr. Wrathell: “Yes. It will be my pleasure. We’re constantly looking at this one.”
Mr. Hulett: “What is the raw number we have left?”
Mr. Wrathell: “We had a little over $2 million in the State Board and it was around $280,000 spread amongst the different funds. I don’t want to make any predictions. At the end of the day, the 14 percent - I’d be shocked if you lose 100 percent of it by any means, but there is some exposure there ultimately, but I’m not sure what it is yet and I’m not sure anybody does.”
c.
Website for
SWCD
Mr. Wrathell stated: “To be honest, on this one I think I dropped the ball on this one. I think Dave had asked me to look at the previous group. I can’t recall.
Mr. Hulett: “I think the bottom line is we actually don’t have our own website and I was asking if you could take a look at how we could get our own website.”
Mr. Wrathell: “I’ll be happy to do that.”
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of the
Following Permit Requests
a.
Drainage
Permit Request from La Placida Real Estate Development for construction of 40
Duplex Units on existing vacant lots 660’ North of Sample Road on the east side
of Coral Springs Drive - tabled from
November 14, 2007 meeting
Mr. DaSilva: “I’ve provided you with an updated letter. This was tabled at the last meeting. This site is an existing site. Sunshine only provides right-of-way permits and when we say right-of-way permit - anytime they build anything in the right-of-way or we actually accept the drainage from this permit - and that’s all we do. As a District, we do review drainage.
[End
of Tape 1; Side A / Start of Tape 1; Side B]
According to the declaration submitted, they do meet the storage requirements per District criteria. As I stated this is an existing site. I will not be familiar with it. I think half of the homes are built. Half of them were not built. The developer, what he’s doing is, he’s now coming back and improving the drainage system and building homes on the actual vacant lots and repaving roads (inaudible). At this point, I just want to move for approval.”
Mr. Hulett: “I think the same problem exists with this permit as it did last month. Is there anybody here from Morandi Engineering and Construction? The difficulty as I recall is, in the application for permit, the location of the work is shown as 660’ north of Sample Road on the east side of Coral Springs Drive and the property is located on the west side of Coral Springs Drive. I was hoping the permit would be resubmitted with the correct location of the work.”
Mr. DaSilva: “You have a location listed in the agenda packet.”
Mr. Hulett: “But that isn’t what it says.”
Mr. DaSilva: “We can contact the Engineer.”
Mr.
Hulett: “I would suggest that Mr. Morandi resubmit his permit with the correct
location of the work on this permit before we accept it.”
On MOTION by Mr. Hulett and seconded by Mr. Sobers, all voted in favor of tabling the application for permit until the correct permit is submitted by Morandi Engineering and Construction of Tamarac. (Motion passed 3-0)
Mr. Wrathell asked Mr. DaSilva to contact the applicant to inform him of the Board’s action.
Mr. Clark, a resident: “What the developer is looking to do is increase the size of the drainage pipes and send the water to our canal. What we’d like to see is more done for onsite stormwater retention - swales and that sort of thing and then they would send less water back to us.
Mr. DaSilva: “Based on District criteria the developer has to provide a certain amount of storage and has met this requirement. The developer looks at pipe capacity in the entire system and maybe some pipes that were designed 20 years ago are not up to Code. They also provided a pipe sizing analysis which works well.”
Mr. Hulett asked, “The point that the gentleman raises is that, his understanding of the project is that there will be larger pipes than the pipes that currently exist. Is that the case? Are large pipes going to be dumping into smaller drainpipes and is that going to create a problem?”
Mr. DaSilva: “They have provided stage 4 calculations and what they do is follow the District criteria and based on the District criteria and ratios, they have to provide certain storage and they meet the storage requirements. So they have the storage. Then they have the pipe capacity. What they do with the pipe capacity is they take the entire system and looked at it and said, maybe some of these pipes that were designed 20 years ago are not up to Code. They also provided a pipe sizing analysis and that also works fine.
Mr. Hulett: “So in your judgment, this project will not create flooding problems as this gentleman is describing.”
Mr. DaSilva: “Like I said, Sunshine - we don’t issue drainage permits.”
Ms.
Early: They do have to go to South Florida Water Management District to get a
permit. And they’re going to have to
meet that. We could have almost 50 inches in 10 hours. You just never know but
the criteria is 19 inches over a 3-day period. That’s what they provide and
that’s what they have to meet.
Mr. Clark: “But they’re meeting that for their piece of property not for ours. They’re draining that water to our property. They’re not meeting that standard for our property.”
Ms. Macomber: “The issue is we don’t necessarily have control over the drainage. That’s South Florida Water Management District. What I hear Cedo and Jane from CH2M Hill saying is that they’ve met the District criteria. Do we have an ability then not to allow it? I don’t know. Bruce?”
Mr. Cranmer: “The pipes already exist. The outflow pipe was permitted 20 years ago.”
Mr. Clark: “But they’re changing from 15 to 18, from 18 to 24, and from 24 to 30, and from 21 to 24. The pipes on their property are going to funnel more water back to the existing pipes on our property.”
Ms.
Early: “Maybe they’re just using additional water pipes for storage on their
property. I’m trying to explain to you what engineers do. They have to go
through SFWMD. This Board can only approve a right-of-way. For example, if
somebody wants to put a pipe in the canal and it crosses the District
right-of-way, we ensure that that pipe is sized properly, that they clean up
the canal and that’s what this Board can do.
Mr. Clark, a resident stated, “I’m glad to hear you deferred it. I feel much better. At least your surveys were done and all that stuff was in so you could look at that before you approve this thing.”
Mr. Hulett requested that someone call Mr. Mirandi to ensure that he submits a report.
b.
Permit for
Sawgrass Prologis/Sawgrass Central, construction of surface water management
that provides water quality and attenuation for the proposed 22.22 acre
development, located at the southwest corner of NW 29th Street and
NW 120th Avenue, Coral Springs (revisions were previously requested
by CH2M Hill on November 1, 2007, and applicant had submitted documentation in
response, which was forwarded to CH2M Hill for review - upon which the December
4, 2007 letter was received from CH2M Hill)
Mr. DaSilva: “This permit was reviewed. We’re asking them to do a little bit more work on the right-of-way and canal for some of the pipes. They have as of December 5, we got a revised letter showing they agree with our requirements.
On MOTION by Mr. Hulett and seconded by Mr. Sobers, all were in favor
of approving the permit. (Motion passed
3-0)
EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of Minutes
for November 14, 2007 Meeting
Mr. Hulett commented that the
minutes seemed to be light in volume. He also commented that there were several
notations of “inaudible” and asked whether it is possible to use the City’s
recording device. He suggested calling the City Clerk to investigate this.
On MOTION by Mr. Hulett and seconded by Mr. Sobers, all were in favor
of approving the November 14, 2007 meeting minutes. (Motion passed 3-0)
TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports
a) Attorney
- Discussion of Memorandum outlining
piggy-backing process on existing City of
Mr. Cranmer suggested that in cooperation with the City, the District’s liaison will deal with the City and place the order. He voiced caution about not exhausting the District’s budget and placing a limit on how much money will be spent. He suggested that the District’s liaisons can designate the specific sites and set a not-to-exceed amount.
Mr. Selchan spoke of an electronic contract which may deliver information more quickly. He suggested that perhaps a similar system would facilitate knowing when the District will reach its spending limit. He also suggested budgeting a certain amount for absolute emergencies.
Mr. Wrathell stated he would be more comfortable with structured language that creates a level of authority stating “only as directed by Cory or whomever”. He voiced concern about being in a difficult situation waiting for funding due to self-imposed funding caps, if hit with an emergency.
Mr. Selchan: “The City is repaid by FEMA, and the District has to go through the NRCS bid process to qualify for funding.”
Mr. Wrathell: “I’d prefer to leave some flexibility regarding the cap amount. I would rather be criticized for going ahead with emergency repair work sooner rather than later - and not set too much of a limitation on the contract.”
It was requested that management provide a sample contract with stipulations.
Mr. Wrathell stated: “Based on my understanding of piggy backing on contracts, the District can simply match the City’s pricing on a product or service without going through the bidding process.”
Mr. Cranmer spoke of a special bill pending in the Broward County Special District Commission where 18 political appointee members would review all the districts.
Ms. Macomber stated she did not believe this would go anywhere.
Mr. Cranmer agreed and explained that the statute 189.428 is a general law which supercedes and established very specific fine criteria for getting rid of or rearranging a District.
Mr.
Wrathell added that if the general purpose government wished to take over and
dissolve this District, they would have to assume all the assets, liabilities
and outstanding debt.
b) Field Supervisor
Mr. Selchan thanked the Board members for their time and effort in helping management accomplish its various goals this year.
Ms. Macomber expressed gratitude on behalf of the Board to Mr. Selchan and his staff.
c) Manager - Copy of Chapter 287.055,
No report was given.
ELEVENTH ORDER
OF BUSINESS Approval
of Financials and Invoices
a) Unaudited Financial
Statements as of
Mr. Wrathell referred to page 3 of the General Fund where
it indicated net revenue over expenditures showed a negative. He explained that
this is attributed to the fact that tax collections come in after November and
therefore, the negative in cash flow will move to a positive number.
Mr. Hulett referred to the CH2M Hill invoice under Check Register for period ending November 30. He commented that the invoice for the Board meeting in October, 2007 for $2,089, calculated at 11.5 hours at the highest rate, seemed a little high.
Mr. Hulett questioned the item Non Hurricane Vegetation Removal being billed on Work Order #2, for work done on October 26 for $1,394.00.
Mr. Selchan stated that a project was taken on to remove nuisance trees along the waterways after the tree stumps had been cleared.
Mr. Hulett questioned why Engineering Services was involved.
Mr. Selchan advised that CH2M Hill had administered and oversaw this contract.
Mr. Hulett referred to an invoice
dated
Mr. Wrathell advised this was approved at the last meeting.
Mr. Hulett referred to another
invoice dated through
Mr. Wrathell stated this is the other invoice that was approved and stated it was included in error.
Mr. Hulett stated he is still uncomfortable with the $2,500 amount being paid to CSID for contract personnel services. He asked about the status of this relationship.
Mr. Wrathell stated he has always gotten the same response on this issue which is, “The attorney is working on it.”
Mr. Hulett suggested having Mr. Daly push this issue along.
Mr. Wrathell agreed to contact him.
b) CH2M
Hill Invoices for Approval for Period Before WHHA Was Management Firm
Mr. Hulett referred to the last two items - copies of CH2M Hill bills and asked about their status. In response, Mr. Wrathell explained that these two items preceded management coming on board. He stated he did not feel it was appropriate to sign off on these.
On MOTION by Mr. Sobers and seconded by Mr. Hulett, all were in favor
of approving the financial statements and CH2M Hill invoices. (Motion passed
3-0)
TWELVTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors Requests and
Audience Comments
A resident voiced concern that there are several drainage easements between her home and others; as a result, her yard is getting smaller. She expressed a desire to get more footage around her pool deck.
Mr.
Selchan stated that the right-of-way behind this home is probably District
property and they may not allow for any hard structure there. It was also
stated that per City Code, a flat pool deck can be within 5 feet of the
property line but if the homeowner builds anything vertical, it has to be 15
feet of the property line.
The Board expressed regret at not
being able to help this resident further.
Mr.
Hulett requested that management contact
Kevin to see when an article could be written for the
[End of Tape 1; Side B; Start of Tape 2;
Side A]
Mr.
Hulett asked about the status of temporary fencing.
Mr. Selchan advised that he spoke
with Rick Michaud about getting some razor wire or Constantin wire; but this
was not permitted. However, this is being discussed for high security areas for
plants and possibly the pump station. This item is up for discussion in future
staff meetings.
Mr. Wrathell stated that management has a firm that builds decent quality websites at a reasonable price in a short time. He asked whether this will be acceptable or whether management should solicit something more elaborate. He advised that his firm produced websites for $1200-$1500 and maintain these for about $80 or $100 per month if there are lots of updates.
Ms. Macomber wished everyone present
a healthy and happy holiday season.
THIRTEENTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
On MOTION by Mr. Sober and seconded by Mr. Hulett, all were in favor of
adjournment at
___________________________ ____________________________
Secretary/Assistant Secretary Chairman/Assistant Chairman